Tim - Seattle,

You wrote,

"Ah, but you dodged the question again! And you also keep cut and pasting the same post.
Dont care about $12 a gallon gas (that would be per litre, btw)in Europe. Stay on topic, Hank!
So if you say lower taxes and a good economy are what will get the uninsured to afford health insurance, then you are acknowledging there is a problem and are also stating a solution.
The conditions you prescribe as a solution have actually have not made a dent in the problem. So, if your solution doesn't work then what do we try next?"

—-

Actually Tim, I am staying on point. The price of gas in Europe runs about $4/litre ( Litre = little more than a quart). $4 x (3 litres = 1 gallon) = $12/gallon. I've been to Europe 3 times in the last 4 years .. and I'm PAINFULLY aware of their gas prices!

I acknowledge there is a "perceived" problem (uninsured Americans). But how many "perceived" problems could we create and cry for a government solution?? Unisured Motorist (people who own cars but don't pay for auto insurance)…. Drunk driving or auto-related deaths (shouldn't we outlaw beer/wine/liquor or have a government program to solve it?)…. Obesity (shouldn't the government pay for all our health-club dues?)…

So..WHAT should be done about unisured Americans?? Several things:

1. On a Federal level - insure the tax structures help all Americans, promote growth in our economy, perhaps provide additional tax-breaks for health insurance costs for all Americans.

2. On a State Level - insure the tax structure help all Americans, promote growth in the economy, IF the people of the State want universal healthcare - provide this coverage on the State level. The people of that State can pay the bill.

3. On the individual level - make good healthy choices (diet, exercize, etc), seek employment where health insure benefits are offered, if unavailable - seek higher deductible catastrophic plans to provide SOME benefit.

A Federal Program is the wrong approach. Government waste and inefficiency would "cost" taxpayers immensely more (good heavens - look how Social Security and Medicare are financially bankrupt). This issue should be a State issue and an individual responsibility to improve one's life.

Daniel,

You wrote, "when a weak US dollar dampens foreign investment, that forces higher yields on government bonds. And that would have a direct impact on a variety of interest rates paid by American consumers, American businesses, mortgage rates, etc. It also means that goods produced overseas (with little domestic competition) will cost more for Americans and add to our enormous existing trade deficit. It would raise prices for companies that buy raw materials and parts elsewhere, which means, once again, higher prices for you and me (if not that, layoffs! Yay!)"

—-

I'd be happy to help you out, Daniel.

A weak US dollar does NOT dampen foreign investment. Just the opposite! Because foreign dollars are "stronger" they can buy more in the US. Have you not been hearing the complaints about China owning a significant portion of our debt? Have you not heard of the Dubyai deal to purchase 20% of the NASDAQ??

Domestic Interest rates are not driven by the strength of the US dollar abroad - but primarily by the Federal Reserve's up-ing and lowering of the Fed Reserve Rate. Mortgage rates - effecting Americans - are directly related to these changes, as well as "market" conditions (supply ~ demand) of the housing market.

Again the trade deficit goes DOWN with a weak US dollar because our goods become cheaper and the foreign goods become more expensive. Typically LESS foreign goods are purchased by American consumers when prices go up. A great example is tourism! If you can't afford the $3000 for a week in Paris - most families would spend $1500 going to the Grand Canyon, NYC, Hawaii or some other US destination. All good for the US economy.

The truth is - a strong US dollar has advantages and disadvantages… just as a weak US dollar. But to bash the President and cry how horrible having a weak US dollar is - isn't factually accurate.

PS - I teach "Investments" involving a heavy emphasis on Macroeconomics at a local University.

Good to see you ignored my comments entirely, Henry. Keep spouting those tourism figures, it'll keep your head in the sand for a long time.

I ask you again: how is the Bush economic model of 'increased spending with decreased income' remotely sustainable?

I assume you've taken an economics course, this kind of thing is covered in the first week.

Thanks Henry- You beat me to it.

People throw out these insane statements and hope no one will follow up on it. I was accused of being a blind believer in what Bush says, and told $83,000 is not the accurate amount. A little research and it was proved to be accurate.

Not one Dubya hater has been willing to address the issues of this bill.

No one is saying that children don't deserve healthcare. Most here just have a problem with age and income requirements, and the funding.

Would someone in favor of this bill like to address those issues?

I doubt it. Would rather say insane things like. . .

"Republicans are sick people" and

"we can send our kids to iraq, but can't give them healthcare".

Neither of those statements address the issue and truthfully just make you look dumb.

I thought dems prided themselves on being educated.

Not showing it here. Surprise me and someone address the issues.

Ryan - Ny Ny,

Do you even have a clue what you are talking about?? Try doing a little research to get FACTS:

Tourism: http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/outreachpages/inbound.general_information.inbound_overview.html

Tourism: 25% increase in visitors since 2003
2003 - visitors to US = 41 Million
2006 - visitors to US = 51 Million

Tourism: 33% increase in $ spent by tourists:
2003 - spent by tourists in US = $80 Billion
2006 - spent by tourists in US = $107 Billion

The US Trade Deficit has lowered 18% over just the last year:http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/ticker_home.asp

Aug 2006 - trade deficit = 680 Billion
Today - trade deficit = 560 Billion

How again has the "weak" US dollar hurt our economy? Please provide REAL information other than your anectodal evidence ("because you say so"). The fact is - a weak US dollar helps our economy in many respects. Spouting how it's a problem indicates your lack of understanding.

STUPID STUPID STUPID!! OMG - they rely on you guys to be this dumb….the Democrats could of added 20 billion to this bill…and it would be passed….MORONS!! The very same Democrats could of added the 20 billion..and it would be passed….if they felt it needed more funding (to complete their socialist agenda) - they could of gone back….but….it wouldn't give them this photo opt - anyone above who said "shame on Bush" - etc - are morons who are being played by a party playing political games….truthfully I am sickened by the fact that they can pull the wool over your eyes (btw….THE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THE WAR TOO….AND FUNDED IT) - in case you weren't aware

Gee Daniel, are you an Econ major? Just wondering how you reached your conclusions that a weak dollar (against foreign markets) means bad things for the US?

Considering stronger currencies provide tourism here in the states, greater exports versus imports (our goods are cheaper to buy), etc. HOW exactly does a weak dollar abroad hurt America? (Actually the "billionaires" get hurt since they're more likely to travel/live abroad - costing them more for their bottle of french wine).

Posted By Henry Tucker, Ga : October 8, 2007 5:56 pm

—

Let's see: when a weak US dollar dampens foreign investment, that forces higher yields on government bonds. And that would have a direct impact on a variety of interest rates paid by American consumers, American businesses, mortgage rates, etc. It also means that goods produced overseas (with little domestic competition) will cost more for Americans and add to our enormous existing trade deficit. It would raise prices for companies that buy raw materials and parts elsewhere, which means, once again, higher prices for you and me (if not that, layoffs! Yay!)

The benefits, which you mentioned, are improved tourism (come visit our devalued nation with all your Euros!) and increased sales overseas for certain huge U.S. corporations. But does that benefit the average American? I would argue no, neither of those things are particularly preferable to a strong dollar.

No, I'm not an economics major or even a college student (anymore). But I find it interesting that an educated person can consider Bush's formula of "increase spending while descreasing income" remotely intelligent or sustainable.

Help me out here, what am I missing?

Gee Daniel, are you an Econ major? Just wondering how you reached your conclusions that a weak dollar (against foreign markets) means bad things for the US?

Posted By Henry Tucker, Ga : October 8, 2007 5:56 pm

Are you kidding? Have you looked at the tourism numbers in the last 5 years? No one wants to come here because we make traveling such a pain. There's an industry wide problem that's been reported numerous times. All of Europe's tourism rates are skyrocketing, meanwhile, the US is sinking because of our image abroad. You're right, we SHOULD be capitalizing on the low worth of the dollar, as that's one of the few benefits of having low exchange rates, but we can't even get that part right.

And regarding how it only hurts those that shop outside of the US and "french wine," do you realize how much of an import-export deficit this country runs at? It's not just wine, it's everything that we bring in. Now I realize you probably want everything "Made in the USA," but you wouldn't be able to buy it at Wal-Mart if it were since it'd be too expensive to create even at the US's minimum wage rates.

First, the Democrat party was exposed for celebrating every bogus, phony "soldier" claiming to have won a war. Now, the Democrat party, in its attempt to forcibly collectivize one seventh of the booming, booming, booming Bush economy, has been exposed for exploiting a small child by having said child read their socialist talking points during the Democrat party weekly radio address. The child's parents live in a home worth at least $500,000 and spend $40,000 per year to send two kids to private schools, and the treason party wants the American tax payer to provide health insurance for these parents' children.

Posted By Tom, Texas, USA : October 8, 2007 2:42 pm

Boy, you and Malkin, the National Review and all of the other right wing bloggers are having a field day promoting all these mistruths. Not to mention that you're attacking a 12-year old who was nearly killed in a car accident. You guys have sunk to an all-time low now. Congrats.

Now for the facts in instead of your uninformed talking points. The parents' house is now worth $500K, but they bought it for $55K 16 years ago when the neighborhood wasn't very safe. Now you're complaining because it's worth a lot because property values have raised after their purchase. 2nd, they spend $500 a year on tuition, not $40K for those private schools. Both children are covered by scholarships and the daughter's "private school" is a school for children with the sort of brain injuries that the girl received. The state pays for that, which I'm sure infuriates you, but it's not exactly the prep school that you're making it out to be. The family hasn't made more than $50,000 combined in any of the past few years. If you go over to Malkin's site, she even states that their neighbor told her that the Frosts were "stuggling" when she Michelle starting bothering the family at home.

By the way, these kids were covered under the OLD CHIP program, so are you now saying that the level of that program is too high? Would you have been happier had CHIP not covered them and they couldn't have received the medical attention necessary? That way, maybe Maryland could have lucked out when the girl died, that way they wouldn't have to subsidize her special education, too?

If a $60k/year income puts you in the poor house, you must be CHOOSING to live in a high rent district.

Move to South Dakota, Louisiana, Oklahoma or many other states where $60k is a comfortable living.

Ben from Kentucky,

We all know that 60k is well to do in Kentucky, but try raising a family of 4 on that on the West and East coastsl.

Posted By JB : October 8, 2007 5:36 pm

What political group has a cabal of support on the East and West coasts?

What group would never get elected if it wasn't for these 2 coasts.

I live on the east coast and my state is run by the Democrats (even when we had Republican Governors, they vetoed anything that made sense) and NOBODY can afford to live here anymore.

People come here to get their education and FLEE just as soon as they are done, hopefully with their wallets still intact.

If you like this, just wait until Harry and Nancy roll out their increased tea tax.

Say you want a revolution?

When the government exploits CHILDREN like this, the looming specter of communism is already upon us.

Now Folks. Remain calm. The Administration has provided talking points to the hate jocks, FOX, and their hired bloggers so there is no reason to believe that the veto will be overridden. Of couse many of these60 k incomes are derived from the phenomena of two parents working two jobs or 60 to 70 hours a week of low wage jobs but to a good republican that is the cats meow. Keep the koolaid flowin RNC.

"Do you believe $83,000 is the right income requirements? Higher or lower and why? Do you think the age limit of 25 is right? Higher or lower and why?"

Thank you for asking. I'd like to see a government subsidized health care plan, with sliding-scale premiums, available for anyone who wants it. Why? Because I'm not satisfied with the results I'm getting as a consumer of health insurance plans, and I want another choice. My government has more bargaining power than I do as an individual. My government works for me, and I've decided that I would like it to earn its pay by using its power as a market participant at the negotiating table to get me a better price on my medications and my care coverage. Private plans do it all the time, but their efforts don't translate to lower costs for me because of the intervening shareholder interests. I want those savings passed on to me, not turned into dividends. Some call it a welfare state; I call it expecting a greater return out of the money I'm asked to invest in my government.
As for those who think their private coverage serves them just fine, they should be able to keep it–just like they should be able purchase private educational services for their children while helping fund the public schools.

As for the issue of illegal immigrant health care, the reason we have so many illegal immigrants is that we make immigration so illegal, so I really don't feel as sorry for us as most people do. So…we have 12 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S., and we aren't going to be able to deport 12 million people without creating serious economic and social disruption. Honestly, we aren't realistically going to be able to deport 12 million people, period. I'd rather my taxes went towards routine doctor's office care for those 12 million illegal immigrants than towards the far more expensive and disruptive emergency room care my taxes are paying for right now. I already pay for health care for undocumented immigrants, and I want it done more efficiently. Of course, I don't buy the "they don't pay taxes" and "they're a drain on our economy" pitches, so I'm not entirely convinced that we'd even lose economic productivity by providing illegal immigrants with health care.

I'm sure I'll now be attacked as a lazy pinko pseudointellectual, but while you're all calling me names, please remember that I did answer the questions in good faith.

These Democrats care nothing for children. Their only purpose is to score off Republicans. America sees that. Look at the picture with this article. These people look like children at a party playing games. Time for a new house and congress, these people are has-beens.

The Veto was because of UNFAIR funding, and comes from a Tax and Spend Ideology. Im all for tending to our children as the President is as well,,,,,,But its about Unfair funding,,,,,,Liberals need to come up with a FAIR way to abstract the funds to pay for the Actions of this bill.,,,,People who enjoy the old American Tradition of Smoking Cigars, Ciggs, and Pipes are the ones who were targeted to pay for this Funding,to the tune of a 136% increase in price of a carton of Ciggs,,,UNFAIR !,,,How many NONsmokers would volunteer or like to be forced to pay for this Bill?,,,say, kick down 10 bucks a week taken out of their checks?,,,,Ill bet not a dam one would do it !,,,Then watch how loud they would scream bloody murder to get the bill REPEALED,,,,,and back up the President's signature.

In the first place, I think the SCHIP veto is simply a distraction to keep people from talking about the "North American Union".
But on the subject, I don't think these politicians whose incomes are 9794 percent above the poverty line and are receiving tax payer funded health care themselves should be whining about someone 300 percent over the poverty line, adult or not, POSSIBLY getting help with health care.
Let them give up theirs before they take away or deny someone elses.

I believe that those opposing any health care provisions have been fortunate enough not to have to pay the riduculous bills from such a visit.

My wife recently spent less that 24 hours in the hospital for chest pain. The total cost of that stay was $24K and with our great health policy that covers 60% we are responsable for almost 10K. This to be told it "might" be low potassium.

Now you tell me that health care costs are not out of line and about to bankrupt the middle class. If you are fortunate enough not to have been to the hospital recently count your blessings.

Yes, health care is an issue and will be in the next election.

It's time to try something different? Great. Just so you know what you are voting for - many countries in Europe provide the same socialist-style programs. The current economic status in Europe:

$12 per gallon for gasoline
9% unemployment
40-50% tax rate

Yeah…THAT sounds like a great solution, Tim (insert sarcasm).

——-

Ah, but you dodged the question again! And you also keep cut and pasting the same post.
Dont care about $12 a gallon gas (that would be per litre, btw)in Europe. Stay on topic, Hank!
So if you say lower taxes and a good economy are what will get the uninsured to afford health insurance, then you are acknowledging there is a problem and are also stating a solution.
The conditions you prescribe as a solution have actually have not made a dent in the problem. So, if your solution doesn't work then what do we try next?

I HAVE THE SOLUTION! Give everyone health care. After a couple of years we'll be so sick and tired of it we'll repeal it and let our children pick up the tab.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

To all of you who keep talking about your tax dollars going to pay for insurance for children of families at 80k a year: Get a grip! Just because 80k is alot of money where youlive doesn't mean it is where I live, because it isn't!

To all of you who blow smoke abour financial discipline: Who the heck do you think you are, you are just assuming that these families are putting health insurance at the low end of their priorities…..It is simply because we can't afford it no matter what we do and how much money we make.

And its not YOUR tax dollars, it's coming from cigarettes…..

We should be ashamed to have stooped to this level. To use children to further political goals of universal healthcare is so sad. They knew full well this would never pass and did it anyway. Parents should be responsible for taking care of their children, not the government. For those who can't there are state programs.

I am so sick and tired of scorecard politics. I wish we could wipe the slate clean and elect all new representatives. And before anyone comes yelling that I am some Right Wing Waco, hold it. . . I am a Democrat thru and thru and this is where I draw the line. I do not want a United States of Socialism.

To Ken in Kentucky,

Maybe 60k a year in your state is good but in South Florida, 60k puts you in the poor house!

REPUBLICANS ARE VERY SICK PEOPLE.

Did one of you waterheads just say that the Bush economy is BOOMING? You might want to read up on how pathetically weak the US dollar is right now, and what a grave and long-lasting effect this is going to have on EVERY American ('cept the billionaires, I suppose.)

Posted By Daniel, Atlanta GA : October 8, 2007 4:51 pm

—

Gee Daniel, are you an Econ major? Just wondering how you reached your conclusions that a weak dollar (against foreign markets) means bad things for the US?

Considering stronger currencies provide tourism here in the states, greater exports versus imports (our goods are cheaper to buy), etc. HOW exactly does a weak dollar abroad hurt America? (Actually the "billionaires" get hurt since they're more likely to travel/live abroad - costing them more for their bottle of french wine).

no nationalized health care. it is bad, bad, bad. something that sound like utopia on the surface is rotten to its core. plus I pay for my family's healthcare, i don't want to pay for anyone else's. If people learn to prioritize and not get the gucci bags, escalades they can't afford and so forth, they'd have money left for something important like, hmmm, HEALTHCARE! Unfortunately that's an afterthought.

What a bunch of Crooks exploiting kids for a bill they are plain lying about. I would expect nothing less from Nancy Pelosi and Dirty Reid,,,both horrible leaders and traitors to this country.

We can send our children to die in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN and we want them to be healthy to fight these wars and we are willing to even pass these children the trillion in deficits GEORGE BUSH HAS RAN and then we oppose abortion because we need them to fight the wars but we do not have the heart to pay for their insurance. WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY IS THIS?

SICK, SICK, SICK
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR YOU!!!
IT does not make sense

Ben from Kentucky,

We all know that 60k is well to do in Kentucky, but try raising a family of 4 on that on the West and East coastsl.

With the majority of Americans in support of this SCHIP BILL, I just pray that the Democratic leadership not buckle and capitulate to a weaken and defeated Bush.
However if past track record is any indicator, one can predict that they will fold like a cheep card table.
DAMN-IT DEMOCRATS , SHOW SOME INTESTINAL FORTITUDE.

Why should my tax dollars go to fund medical benefits for children whose parents make 80k a year? I don't have a problem with providing assistance for those at or below the poverty level but enough is enough. I certainly understand the high cost of health care as I pay almost 900.00 a month to provide coverage for my family. All this is really about is the democrats attempting to make themselves look good in the eyes of the general public. As a small business owner I pray the tax happy democrats don't take control of the Whitehouse as I can ill afford to pay more taxes to fund all the liberal programs they are sure to put in place.

Did one of you waterheads just say that the Bush economy is BOOMING? You might want to read up on how pathetically weak the US dollar is right now, and what a grave and long-lasting effect this is going to have on EVERY American ('cept the billionaires, I suppose.)

There's an elephant in the room…it's in the form of:

-Cell phones for everyone in the family
-Car payments beyond what the family can afford
-Too much house
-$100+ monthly Cable TV bill

"Healthcare is unaffordable!"

Yes, only because "Middle Class" families put it on the lower end of the importance spectrum, far behind the "essentials" listed above. Keep using the kids as props to disguise a lack of financial discipline.

How I read Politico comments: (1) if it's over five lines long, I ignore it because it's incoherent blather rather than concise commentary; (2) if it's from a Southern state, I ignore it because they're the intellectual armpit of America.

Those who mindlessly continue to blindly follow Bush in ruining our great nation are soon to see the consequences to our children, and not just from the ridiculous veto of this healthcare initiative. Bush is Nero fiddling while Rome burns. And all Bush supporters are sheep just waiting for the next slaughter. The USA is no longer a Democracy when the majority fails to win the day. We have one man acting as an ideologue and a bunch of corrupt chronies doing his bidding. We have HUNDREDS of billions to spend on killing people including are own troops in a region that will never understand western civilization let alone acting civil. Yet we have no money to spend on our children? Who cares who has the money or the means? Insure all the children! Health care to our citizens is a right not a priviledge. When bird flu mutates to a pandemic state shouldnt we want everyone to be able to be treated or should it just be for the rich? Do the members of congress pay for their own health benefits? I think not. Why not try spending money on healing instead of killing. On reasonably priced drugs instead of bombs. The only thing less patriotic than supporting our troops is supporting President Bush!

Here's' a thought: STOP BREEDING. If you can't afford to feed it or provide it healthcare, then you shouldn't be having it in the first place. Why not ask taxpayers out there who don't and can't afford health insurance themselves how they feel about PAYING for healthcare for someone else's child. It's absurd.

to:Posted By Tom, Texas

On the so called booming, booming, booming Bush economy by you… IT’S COSTING TRILLIONS, TRILLIONS, TRILLIONS OF US DOLLARS!!! It’s a false economy. I can even sustain a booming economy if I could borrow, borrow, borrow…
Read, get informed stop drinking the cool aid MAN.

Well,we have had lower taxes now since 2000 + the economy has been pretty strong until now, and yet there are more uninsured (10 million more since 2000.
So tell we how the empowreing the indivual philosophy has helped the problem….guess what… it hasn't. Time to try something else.

Posted By Tim, Seattle : October 8, 2007 4:00 pm

Tim, exactly WHEN did Healthcare become an obligation of the American People to provide to ALL uninsured? When did personal responsibility get shelved for Government-Sponsored entitlement attitude?

It's time to try something different? Great. Just so you know what you are voting for - many countries in Europe provide the same socialist-style programs. The current economic status in Europe:

$12 per gallon for gasoline
9% unemployment
40-50% tax rate

Yeah…THAT sounds like a great solution, Tim (insert sarcasm).

Which approach is better? Nanny-state or Empowering the individual?
——

Well,we have had lower taxes now since 2000 + the economy has been pretty strong until now, and yet there are more uninsured (10 million more since 2000.
So tell we how the empowreing the indivual philosophy has helped the problem….guess what… it hasn't. Time to try something else.

So let me understand this, if I make 51,000 a year and have to pay 12,000 of that to insure 2 kids, with a 1,000 deductable, that changes my income to 39,000. That's what eveyone is against? So if I'm middle class at 51,000 you want to make sure that I pay my childrens insurance and then make 39,000. Won't that put more middle class into the poor catagory?

"why don't we just give free healthcare to everyone and end up like canada. look for the real problem here not political posturing wonder why we all hate politicians. if a family makes a total of 60k a year they can afford health insurance.

Posted By Ben Kentucky : October 8, 2007 2:38 pm "

Uhm, 60k barely covers rent and normal living expenses in lots of the country and doesn't cover them completely in some parts. And health insurance for a family can easily cost $800 a month. I would rather my tax money go to those families who actually choose to work and yet still can't afford health insurance than those sit home on their butts all day and collect a full ride.

I use to be a republican, but am ever so close to changing parties.

Brian-

Your attempts at changing the subject are noted.

I was referring to the dems on this ticker. Go to any story and someone will be attacking Pres Bush instead of addressing the issues.

So Brian, how do you feel about this bill? DO you think income requirements are spot on?

Or, how do you feel about the funding of this bill?

I am very interested to hear your opinions. : )

The language was also changed to not include children from conception but to provide pregnancy services for pregnant women.

Translation: Taxpayer dollars for abortions. Unless you can show me where every dollar I have to pay for this prgram goes and can assure me it's not going to kill another child, the 83k/yr family can pay my part.

I'm all for the veto. It's the only thing I've agreed with Bush on yet. The problem is, it's not our tax dollars that's paying for this bill - it's a sin tax on tobacco. If our lazy representatives in Washington would actually do their job and find some funding for the bill I'd be all for it.

I find it hard to believe our founding fathers envisioned welfare for abled bodied people and health care for the middle class being provided by the government.

"God helps those who help themselves," Benjamin Franklin.

"God help anyone who doesn't want to give things away for free to people who don't work for it!" Democrats '07

I don't hear any Democrats screaming impeachment.

Actually, it was the bloodthirsty GOP screaming for impeachment when Clinton was President.

Truth hurts, donut.

Instead of name calling address the issues:

Do you believe $83,000 is the right income requirements? Higher or lower and why?

Do you think the age limit of 25 is right? Higher or lower and why?

Do you think illegal immigrants should be eligible? Why?

You can call people evil etc. . . but gets us no where.

I personally believe that income and age requirements are too high. And I believe that you should have to be a citizen.

I am sure a great number of dems would rather just attack than give thought out, calm rational opinions. Easier to scream impeach and evil poor child hater.

Stupid kids, taking money from us while our oil companies are starving and our wars are going underfunded.

Shame on Nancy Pelosi for wanting to help America's children.

AFL-CIO and Moveon.Org are targeting Republicans?? The only missing party in this group of attackers is Mob Boss, John Gotti.

Actually - this approach will simplify the choice for the American people:

European Socialism (Baby bond, Universal Healthcare, SCHIP - $83k income & 25 year olds are "covered", Unrestrained taxpayer funded pet projects, tax cuts rejected…taxes increased)

verus

Return to Fiscal Conservatism
(Winding down Iraq War, keep tax rates low, keep inflation down, keep unemployment low, invest in growing our economy, empower individuals to purchase health insurance through low taxes and strong economy)

Which approach is better? Nanny-state or Empowering the individual?

"Liberal groups target Republicans" again, oh dear…, and enlight of the success rate of this 110th Congress, they have a lot to worry about.., NOT!

I agree with Dave from New York. Well said!

First, the Democrat party was exposed for celebrating every bogus, phony "soldier" claiming to have won a war. Now, the Democrat party, in its attempt to forcibly collectivize one seventh of the booming, booming, booming Bush economy, has been exposed for exploiting a small child by having said child read their socialist talking points during the Democrat party weekly radio address. The child's parents live in a home worth at least $500,000 and spend $40,000 per year to send two kids to private schools, and the treason party wants the American tax payer to provide health insurance for these parents' children.

What's wrong with people pulling their own weight?

Six states used money that was supposed to go to poor children to give to adults! SHAME!

SHCIP can go to ADULTS up to age 25! SHAME!

SCHIP can go to households making over $80,000 instead of going to poor kids! SHAME!

If a democrat is elected in '08, do you think they'll refuse any waivers for people making 4+ times poverty level?

The President should VETO any bill that gives freebies to middle class adults in the guise of helping poor children.

Instead of free health care, how about birth control?

End the war, and end the welfare state!
Vote Ron Paul!

I'm sure the million dollar ads are going to show under privileged children such as is described in this article:

…It includes images of a baby and other children with an announcer saying "George Bush just vetoed Abby."

What these ads won't say is the Bush didn't veto underprivileged children at all. SCHIP still exists and still covers the health care needs of children living in homes making up to approximately $34,000.

Bush veto'd a bill that provided health care to families earning approximately $52,000.

Hypocrite Pelosi and her private jet while children go without health care is counting on the fact that voters can't or won't do the math.

why don't we just give free healthcare to everyone and end up like canada. look for the real problem here not political posturing wonder why we all hate politicians. if a family makes a total of 60k a year they can afford health insurance.

Who wants to slight the poor for middle class white votes??

Americans United for Change
AFL-CIO
MoveOn.org
Media Matters
Democratic Congressional Committee

Can you say, Culture of Corruption, how about Vast Left-Wing Slime Machine

Sorry guys, but you lost all credibility when you attacked our war hero for trying to do his job…

It serves the Republicans right.

The DCCC has $22.1 million on hand, compared with $1.6 million for their Republican counterpart, simply because voters are not interested in the GOP and their lies anymore.

good, the GOP should be targeted for this shameful veto… What is wrong with this president that he will throw billions of our tax dollars into the pit of Iraq but refuses the relatively minor expense of *taking care of our children* ? There is something fundamentally wrong with those values.